Friday, December 18, 2009

My wife found someone giving away birds. I picked some up last night. We now have two more red hens and four white ducks.

The previous owner says the ducks are good layers and the eggs are large. I'm not sure what to do with ducks but if they lay eggs I guess I'll take them. They have more ducks and I may pick up some more.

Funny thing is these people had two hens and seven roosters. I told them I would take the roosters but I would just put them in the pot because I've already got more than I want. They said they thought they could find someone that wanted to keep roosters. LOL because I can't wait until I get a day or two off to thin mine out.

So if you have maxed out all your credit cards the standard procedure is to get another credit card and keep spending?

I wonder what Dave Ramsey would have to say about that. Actually, I don't have to wonder. I can guess that he would say something like "What is wrong with you? Are you really that stupid!?"

More nonsense:

Already in the Senate, there is growing pressure in both parties for the creation of a novel bipartisan task force empowered to force expedited votes in the next Congress on deficit reduction steps now shunned by lawmakers.

A task force of foxes to guard the henhouse.

Here is a good one:

As introduced Wednesday, the legislation sets no specific targets for deficit reduction, but its 18-member task force — 16 of whom would come from Congress — is promised immense leverage to force change if they can first come together behind a plan.

The operative part is "if they can first come together behind a plan." LOL. For a congressman, being on that committee will be sort of like his day in the barrel. He knows if he doesn't perform well while he's in the barrel then the other guys won't perform well for him when they are in the barrel. The difference between that committee and the barrel behind the bunkhouse is that congressmen would do almost anything to get on that committee. It will be one of the most powerful positions in congress. Think about it. The committee tasked with cutting spending. There won't be any corruption associated with that, I'm sure.

I've got a better plan. How about just cut the entire federal budget by 25% the first year. I mean 25% off of the budget of every program and agency. The reason I'm only calling for a 25% cut is that I want to ease into this and give everyone a chance to get used to it. Then, cut 25% across the board again next year. And the next.

Here is another quote from a guy that has a tenuous grasp of reality:

“It is December. We don’t really have a choice,” Obey told POLITICO. “The bill’s already been run up; the credit card has already been used. When you get the bill in the mail you need to pay it.”

That is House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, democrat from Wisconsin. He even used the credit card analogy but he obviously doesn't live in the same universe that the rest of us do.

Here is a hint Dave: When your credit cards are all maxed out it is not time to call the credit card company and ask for an increase on your limit. It is time to stop spending and start paying that sucker off as fast as you can.

I thought that was so simple that even a five year old could understand. This guy is the best they can find in Wisconsin?

More funnies:

Though Treasury can buy itself time by moving assets around, it is already coming close to the current debt ceiling of $12.1 trillion.

Is that referring to a balance transfer? Are you kidding? Max out your cards. Get a new card with the idea of transferring the balance so you don't have to pay this month. Then go max out all the cards again. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?

Here is another:

Last spring, the Democratic-backed budget proposed to raise this to about $13 trillion, but given the current pace of borrowing, no one now expects that will be sufficient to get through 2010.

Ouch. Why don't we just quit playing around and raise it to $1 quadrillion? That way the rest of the world could quit worrying about whether we'll ever pay off our debts. None of this " . . . may default . . . " stuff like Greece.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

We took two of the does and put them in with two of the bucks last weekend. The does were willing and bucks were willing and seemed able. I guess we'll find out soon if they are going to breed like rabbits and start paying us back for the time and money we've put into them.

Quoting former Bank of England policy maker William Buiter the article:

“We could see our first EU 15 sovereign default since Germany had it in 1948.”

More from the article:

The EU’s economic affairs commissioner said late yesterday that officials are ready to help Greece with its budget deficit after concerns about its public finances sparked a rout in Greek government bonds. Fitch Ratings cut its rating on the nation’s debt yesterday to BBB+ and two other major ratings companies are threatening to follow.

OTOH:

There’s “absolutely” no risk Greece will default, Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou said in an interview today with Bloomberg Television. Greek banks are “fundamentally sound” and Greece will not seek an EU aid package, he said.

Well, that makes me feel better. The Greek Finance Minister said everything is fine. Nothing to see here. Now move along.

How many nations fail before we reach the point that nobody can bail them out?

"Global warming" is a scam intended to get commoners to cut back on their air conditioner and to drive little tin can cars so that wealthy people will have more fuel available for their private jets, limos, and 30,000 ft^2 mansions.

Friday, December 4, 2009

I saw the link to this over here and couldn't help but to borrow the link and add my own comments about it.

My first response to this was "Good. It's about time." After further reflection I have another reaction, which is that there are two kinds of people angry at the government.

One kind of people really want to use the government to take things from other people and give to themselves. These people want to use the government to do things to others they they can't legally do themselves. I think that these people are disappointed by the fact that they got what they wanted and it hasn't made them happy. Why would these people be angry at the government? As far as I can see the people in congress and the White House are doing exactly what they said they would before the election.

The other kind of people want to reduce the power of government. They don't want the government to do things for them. They fear what the government will do to them. As the federal government (and state and local governments as well) become larger, more powerful, more invasive, and more expensive, these people will become more angry.

Long ago government at all levels passed the point where it was keeping people from violating each others rights, enforcing contracts between free people, and protecting us from foreign invaders and began redistributing wealth and and enforcing the opinions and attitudes of some onto others. The people of this nation may finally be starting to recognize this, but I doubt it.

The people of this nation caused these problems by how they voted and the decisions they made in life.

Be careful what you wish for because you might get it good and hard.

*****************************************************************Here is something I found interesting in the article:

A majority of those over 40 are Very Angry. Only 25% of under-30 voters share that view.

I'm surprised at that. I thought old people would be the ones pushing for more benefits at the expense of other people's children and that young people would not want to have their future wealth taken to pay for that. Somehow I got it backwards. I guess we are raising our children to want to be controlled.

I suspect most of those people are not big supporters of people actually being able to protect themselves and their families but that doesn't apply to them. LOL, at this point they are probably reconsidering their positions on the government restricting their rights.

I have to focus on one funny paragraph in the article. It starts out with this little gem:

Common sense tells you a handgun is probably not even all that useful.

Well, to be honest, handguns are generally low powered and are difficult to use well and nobody would pick a handgun over a proper rifle if they had the choice. However, to say that they aren't all that useful is idiotic. If they aren't all that useful then why doesn't the NYPD quit carrying handguns?

Here is a little bit of the followup to that nonsense:

Suppose an intruder sneaks past the doorman or jumps the security fence at night. By the time you pull the pistol out of your wife’s jewelry safe, find the ammunition, and load your weapon, Fifi the Pomeranian has already been taken hostage and the gun won’t do you any good.

What idiot thought that statement up? My advice is don't lock your personal protection in a safe. It might not be a bad idea to keep a loaded firearm (All firearms are always loaded) in your safe as a contingency plan but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have your personal weapon on your person. Oh, and get a real dog. I shouldn't beat up on the Pomeranian too much because they make great early warning devices even if they aren't big enough to be a threat themselves.

Finally, some reality invades the world of the author:

As for carrying a loaded pistol when you venture outside, dream on. Concealed gun permits are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain in New York or nearby states.

That is a good reason to not live in NY. It is a fact that carry permits are difficult to get in NYC, but probably an organization like Goldman can grease the skids enough for these guys to succeed.